Rothlein v. Metro Limo Fund, Inc.

539 So. 2d 26, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 623, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 1102, 1989 WL 18806
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 7, 1989·No. No. 88-1750·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff below appeals from an adverse summary judgment entered on the ground that she did not meet the applicable threshold requirements of section 627.-737(2), Florida Statutes (1985). We find no error in the ruling on the merits, but agree that it was improper to terminate the plaintiff’s claim with prejudice. Section 627.-737(3) unequivocally requires that a dismissal on threshold grounds be entered “without prejudice.” Accord Smith v. United States Fidelity & Guar. Co., 305 So.2d 216 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974).1 The judgment under review shall be so amended and is otherwise affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Rothlein v. Metro Limo Fund, Inc., 539 So. 2d 26, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 623, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 1102, 1989 WL 18806 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

539 So. 2d 26 (Rothlein v. Metro Limo Fund, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Smith v. UNITED STATES FID. & GUAR.
305 So. 2d 216 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1974)